Friday, January 10, 2014

A Profile of the Quakers

From the December 2010 E-Block.

***

A reader requested some time ago that we do a
profile of the Quakers (or, Society of Friends). Because this is a
simple profile, I considered it sufficient to secure a single resource
by a Quaker publisher that was clearly intended to serve as an
introduction to Quaker beliefs: Wilmer Cooper’s A Living Faith.
Cooper is an excellent introductory resource for understanding Quakerism
and I recommend it for anyone wanting further information. For the
present, we now offer a basic summary and critique.

The reader may have been interested to know whether Quakerism is
within the pale of orthodoxy. The answer is that it is. They may also
have wished to know if the Quakers harbored any problematic notions. The
answer is that they do – but nothing that one will not find elsewhere
within the pale of orthodoxy. In fact, we will see that objections could
be made to certain Quaker beliefs that are no different than might be
made to beliefs held by certain charismatic figures, or to certain
members of the house church movement. There is nothing radical to report
about Quakerism, to that extent.

There is also a particular caveat to be made. As Cooper
indicates, Quakers have not been conscientious about formulating their
beliefs into creedal statements. There are also varying branches of
Quakerism with differing emphases; there are (naturally) liberal and
conservative branches as well. Thus the caveat would be familiar: To not
apply what is reported here to each and every Quaker one meets.
Actually, given their lack of creedalism, the caveat is more applicable
than it might be in other cases.

The Epistemic Train Wreck, Again

The first issue we will discuss is the largest one, and one that
affects other Quaker beliefs as well. It is not something new to
readers, but something that we have discussed with relation to many
others, ranging from Joyce Meyer to Mormons to John Bevere: Quakers, as
Cooper puts it, “emphasize the primacy of our faith as inwardly
experienced” [xii] and, “beliefs testify to our inner experience of the
Spirit working in our lives.”[xv-xvi] Early Quakers who lived in the
“Age of Reason” and “believed in the following of the Spirit were prone
to distrust this new mode of rational self-sufficiency.” [4] As a
result, rational arguments for God’s existence are considered unable to
prove God exists; instead, “God must be experienced spiritually within”
[34] and only this offers suitable verification of God’s existence.

In Quaker worship, a practice of “silent waiting” may be followed
in which the believer waits on God to provide inspiration. This
experience can be variously labeled, but Cooper indicates that “The
Light of Christ Within” is a principle title. [16] It is said to offer a
“dynamic personal connection” [19] between God and the believer.
Silence was used more frequently in earlier Quaker history (Cooper notes
periods of silence 1-2 hours long [97]) but more recently variety in
expression and worship has become more the norm.

We have already noted with reference to others (Meyer, Bevere,
Mormons, etc) the epistemic shortfalls of such a system, and need not
repeat them in detail. In summary, though, we have here a system in
which there is simply no objective means to discern the voice of God
from the voice of imagination. Like Meyer, Cooper does allude to the
Bible as a possible guide, but as we have noted, this merely eliminates some
possible messages as being from God and will not serve sufficiently as a
thorough spiritual gatekeeping device. In some cases, however, the
Bible is relegated to a secondary authority behind the Light Within
[27-9]: As Cooper puts it, “the Holy Spirit must be invoked as their
true interpreter” [27]. But what happens when, as happens with
Mormonism, the objective data rules out the reputed “true”
interpretation the Spirit allegedly provides? Inevitably, some rationale
is invented such as “this is a new application of the text the Spirit
gave me” which is designed to avoid admitting the less comfortable
option that the Spirit didn’t inspire the interpretation in the first
place.

Cooper even acknowledges this shortfall, and notes that some
Quakers have fallen into what is called “ranterism” [26] – an
undisciplined individualism, apparently including, delivering uninspired
messages thought to be inspired. Speaking also of the governing of
certain Quaker meetings, it is said, “It was claimed that such meetings
for worship were held under the direction of the Holy Spirit, although
one may suspect that sometimes enthusiastic Quaker preachers abused this
practice.” [9-10]

Unfortunately, aside from admitting the possibility of fraud,
Cooper at least seems no more concerned with the problem of discernment
here than anyone else has been. This may not be as much of a problem for
Quakers as it is for say a Meyer, since the tone of Quakerism indicates
that even messages wrongly ascribed to divinity will not be as likely
to contain anything radical or unspiritual (eg, “God wants me to buy a
new Lexus”). Nevertheless, the nature of the issue is such that Quakers
should be concerned, and certainly more concerned than Cooper’s mild
caveats indicate. Nor is any better rational support provided for the
notion (though we would no doubt be told – circularly – that it confirms
itself); appeal is made to John 1:9 as a primary supporting text [16]
(“The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the
world.”) but this is extremely non-specific in terms of the nature and
extent of the enlightenment, and must be strained to support the Quaker
practice. It is good that Cooper encourages “[r]esponsible discernment
of the Spirit” [26], even declaring it “imperative,” but he falls short
in explaining how that discernment is to be enacted.

Again, a caveat should be noted that individual Quakers may
differ widely in how they rate the relative importance of this “Light
Within” to other sources of verification. But it may be said that the
more dependence is placed on the Light Within, the more troubling the
epistemology becomes.

In Other Respects

This critique has only covered potential difficulties. There are
many places where Cooper’s indications show Quakers to be perfectly
orthodox, though perhaps imprecise or sloppy in expression. The doctrine
of the Trinity, for example, has in the past been expressed in such a
way that Quakers supposed that the doctrine “was extra-biblical and
would violate the unity of the Godhead.” [48] But Cooper’s explanation
of the Trinity is more or less the same as would be held by any informed
Trinitarian. Doctrines of salvation are well within orthodox
parameters, and Cooper even explains it in terms of the Semitic Totality
concept (though not using those exact words [244] ). The doctrine of
perfection – the possibility of being fully obedient to the commands of
Christ in this life [83-4] – may cause some discomfiture, but can be
seen as no more than an expression of Jesus’ statement to be perfect as
God the Father is perfect.

There is some discussion with respect to whether the Light Within
is able to provide saving grace to all men [64-5] and to what extent
exposure to the precise message of the Gospel is necessary. In this the
Quakers simply reflect a broader discussion going on in other Christian
circles, and are not unique.

An interesting point is that an early Quaker, William Penn, and
others, claimed that Quakerism was a revival of primitive New Testament
Christianity. One Quaker, George Fox, even went so far as to say that
Christianity had been apostate since the time of Constantine. [90]
Cooper does not relate any more specifics on this, but as we have noted,
this is a frequent charge that has been made by parties both orthodox
(house churches) and not (JWs, Mormons) – and more often than not, it is
frequently overstated, and what is “restored” inevitably resembles not
so much the early church as it does a Western interpretation of it.
Quakerism has not escaped this difficulty, as their emphasis on
individualism and on the Light Within reflect modern thinking much more
than it would ancient collectivist/stratified social concerns.

The emphasis on the individual has also caused a bit of a seesaw
effect in terms of how Quakers enact church discipline and/or
expression, causing debate between “those who advocated complete freedom
of the Spirit and those who felt the need for order and discipline.”
[104] Such a dialectic is hardly a unique Quaker phenomenon, of course;
it can be found in just about any body of any sort where rules are part
of the picture.

One practice that might make Southern Baptists quake is the
rejection of the practice of water baptism under the rationale that it
has been replaced by baptism in the Holy Spirit. [116] The rationales
for rejecting the texts on this subject are very poor: For example,
Matthew 28:19 is essentially dismissed as an interpolation or else
explained away as maybe being baptism in the Spirit, along with other
verses that refer to baptism. There may be a better case available from
some Quaker apologist, but Cooper’s case is insufficient for rejection
of the practice.

The other major issue that might cause some consternation is the
well-known Quaker inclination towards pacifism. Here again, Cooper’s
case is far from thorough, and merely appeals to a few of the same
verses used by other pacifist apologists like Yoder. [136] Again,
perhaps some other Quaker expositor can make a better case, but having
evaluated Yoder’s work in a prior E-Block article (March, 2010) I have
my doubts.

Finally, early Quakers had some disdain for education, especially
formal Biblical/religious education, under the premise that the Light
Within was a sufficient teacher. [179f] But this attitude was abandoned
very early as well, and Quakers now even have their own colleges and
universities.

In sum: There's nothing wrong with these nice people...that isn't
shared by some others within the pale of orthodoxy. Feel free to stop
by and make some Friends.